AirwaySim

Quote from: sami on November 08, 2010, 12:52:17 PM
- updates to cabin configuration systems

Quote from: ICEcold on November 08, 2010, 10:16:09 PM
where did you read AI airlines? ???

Quote from: Sami- technical possibility for AI airlines

Quote from: Jps on November 09, 2010, 10:55:11 AM
In Sami's initial post (is there a way to quote a post with link to a closed topic?):

Quote from: https://www.airwaysim.com/The text you quoted goes here. Notice the url is hyperlinked. The forum software will do that automatically as long as the url is valid.

Quote from: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg134279.html#msg134279Plans are currently for example (but not limited to...) for the following changes:

- changes to airline founding / creation
- technical possibility for AI airlines
- improved aircraft storage system
- changes to slot systems (?)
- changes to pax distribution algorithm (?)
- updates to price management features
- updates to cabin configuration systems
- a heavy data update with historical aircraft, prototype aircraft and cargo in mind (for future versions)
- time permitting an update to the visuals of the game interface
... etc.

Quote from: Jps on November 09, 2010, 10:55:11 AM
In Sami's initial post (is there a way to quote a post with link to a closed topic?):

Quote from: ICEcold on November 09, 2010, 08:02:40 PM
sorry I didn't read that I guess. :-[

Quote from: ICEcold on November 09, 2010, 08:36:33 PM
might very well have been that....actually it must be. :o AI Airlines? realistic I guess because the world doesn't just start with an endless amount of passengers that want to be flown someplace.. :P There should be like 3 airlines for each continent (so like one in Mexico/Caribbean, one in the US and one in Canada for North America)...maybe, just maybe. ;D

Quote from: jvernikos on November 24, 2010, 08:54:05 AM
Hi sami I just wanted to ask a feature if possible for the 1.3 update. Connecting flights...

...I believe this would create a much more dynamic world...

Quote from: Dave4468 on November 25, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
I love the LCY idea, nice to see that sorted but just noticed the A318 is missing from the "allowed" list. Will it be added or can the system not handle the low fuel take off and stop at Shannon it does?

Quote from: sami on November 25, 2010, 07:42:02 PM
Added sizeclass 1 & 2 restriction to BMA. It's really MTOW 50tn limit but this is close enough.

Quote from: Boiler Dweller on December 05, 2010, 10:26:33 PM
First read this, https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg137990.html#new

Second notice on the new features that he is adding Sami is now giving us two options for closing routes. We can not close the route and return the slots or close and keep the slots. Now does any one else see a problem here? Perhaps we should have a time limit on how long you should be allowed to hold on to the slots? And possibly pay a fee for not flying the route but holding the slots?  Thoughts any one?
PS, love the other features so far!

Quote from: Dave4468 on December 10, 2010, 01:43:52 PM
* Added new game rule (v.1.3) that prevents slot misuse on high demand routes: Each airline is allowed to have a maximum of 40 daily departures to each destination (on average) per each weekday. This is a 'hard limit' on all routes, not depending on the true route demand or anything (would be too complicated). Just a simple rule to prevent endlessly routing 50 seater planes to a route with 10 000 pax demand...

All my previous complaints addressed.  ;D

Quote from: mgrisoli on January 05, 2011, 01:20:03 PM
Hello guys! Thanks for coding so addictive game!
I've a question that may be it's already covered for the next release but I'll ask for that anyways...
When you update a route, like timing or turn around it drops from the aircraft schedule regardless of having conflicts with other routes.
This forces you to go back to the schedulling screen to add the route again to the aircraft.
I assume this is to force the execution of a conflicts checking algorithm.
Is that possible to have those conflicts checked when the route is updated and not have it dropped when there are no conflicts?
It's a pain in the back when you are making adjustments to fix the delays for too quick turn around and just want to expand intervals between routes, for example.
Good game anyways I can't wait to see the enhancements for 1.3.

Quote from: cedlind on January 12, 2011, 06:30:52 PM
Another lil request regarding automatic registrations (never good enough for some of us, is it? :) )
Could the series be assigned to Base *airport* instead of Base *country*?

Quote from: chunky25 on January 12, 2011, 09:39:27 PM
How about instead of implementing many new features improve the current ones. I'm thinking of the following. Just a few examples. The pros might have many more ideas.

- model route pricing into pax demand properly

Quote from: chunky25 on January 12, 2011, 09:39:27 PM
- model cabin configurations into pax demand

Quote from: chunky25 on January 12, 2011, 09:39:27 PM
- model route marketing into pax demand properly

Quote from: chunky25 on January 12, 2011, 09:39:27 PM
- model plane condition into company image

Quote from: chunky25 on January 12, 2011, 09:39:27 PM
- model plane condition into company image

Quote from: JumboShrimp on January 14, 2011, 01:48:11 PM
I am not sure about this one, but probably it already has some influence.  Just remember, money increases CI, a lot of other factors lower it.  So if you have a lot of old planes, you may have to spend some extra money.  But as I said, I am not really sure if and how much an old or poorly maintained plane affects CI.

Quote from: sami on February 19, 2011, 12:57:39 PM
The airline listings are capable of showing the airlines with no active CEO (as per v.1.3) but there's no other development on that field yet.

Quote from: Ilyushin on February 19, 2011, 01:50:20 PM
Pretty impressive how that one computer guy got a value of 114 million with no aircraft... ;D

Quote from: alexgv1 on January 14, 2011, 02:00:23 PM
Just to expand on this point and reiterate; fleet age and condition does factor into your company image.

So JumboShrimp you are right about that it does have some influence on the calculations for CI. I'm not sure how much it can sway it, as the driving factor is marketing spending as you've already mentioned.

Quote from: Jona L. on February 20, 2011, 01:09:51 PMSami, in case you don't put any useful things into v1.3 better stop doing those eyecandy things, and get working on things needed, like IFE, Catering, etc. I hope for you, that you will have some great stuff in there, rather than only some new maps and selectors...

Quote from: palandar on February 20, 2011, 06:16:47 PM
What I'd like to see in a future version is a way to assign two aircrafts to routes longer than 24 hours, so that you don't have to make two flights 1-3-5-7 and 2-4-6. Anyone knows if there's a plan for this?

Quote from: palandar on February 20, 2011, 06:57:06 PM
I do understand it, but in that case you have to create 7 different routes with different flight numbers, which is unrealistic.

Quote from: Jona L. on February 20, 2011, 08:58:51 PM
Well, wait for AWS 10.9.7 if you want that really :P

Quote from: Jordan112 on February 20, 2011, 11:06:24 PM
I have to say I am really looking for v1.3 and sami looks to be doing an amazing job of it. :)  I have  a question what is the benefit of
1------
-2-----
--3----
---4---
----5--
-----6-
------7
routing?

and Jona L.  if this simulation is not realistic enough for you, why are you here? this is a tight net community and you have to appreciate what sami has done for us.

Quote from: Ilyushin on February 20, 2011, 09:14:18 PM
Just drop it... :-\

Quote from: Jordan112 on February 20, 2011, 11:06:24 PM
and Jona L.  if this simulation is not realistic enough for you, why are you here? this is a tight net community and you have to appreciate what sami has done for us.

Quote from: TK1244 on February 20, 2011, 02:22:47 PMWhy don't we just wait until the v1.3 is launched and then start talking about 'usefull things' which aren't included.

Quote from: Jona L. on February 21, 2011, 10:58:33 AMBut I'd rather now stop discussing this in here, and wait for V1.3 coming out, and see what it brings.

Quote from: Jona L. on February 21, 2011, 10:58:33 AM
Drop what?! We all did jokes on that we have to wait for several further versions to get the IFE thing rolling (see the demotivator about it)...

Quote from: Ilyushin on February 21, 2011, 11:23:23 AM
You basically said yet again that it takes a long, long time before anything good comes out again (something good for you, some people are very happy with what has been announced by sami as updates now). Just be patient and stop whining, sami is of course doing his best for us. He can't please everyone. Just wait and there will also be an update that keeps you happy. You demand the somewhat bigger updates, so that requires more time.

Please understand.

Ilyushin

Quote from: TK1244 on February 21, 2011, 11:11:26 AM
+1 ;D Thanks for listening

Quote from: Jona L. on February 21, 2011, 11:34:25 AMd) I do understand ;)e) Yes, TK I know you said that already, I was just too lazy to find that again ;D

Quote from: Jona L. on February 21, 2011, 11:34:25 AM
a) I am not whining
b) I know sami is working hard, all I said is that he maybe should get assistance, e.g. forum moderators, so that he can concentrate on the serious stuff (I'd do that for free, btw. ;) )
c) Yes, I wish for bigger updates, and everyone is free to say and think what he wants (dunno how that is in Russia though... )
d) I do understand ;)e) Yes, TK I know you said that already, I was just too lazy to find that again ;D

Jona L.

Quote from: Ilyushin on February 21, 2011, 11:57:22 AM
I'm not Russian by the way. ;D

Quote from: Jona L. on February 21, 2011, 03:06:21 PM
In your profile it says "Russia" but well... Netherlands is a bit more democratic though, but you know what I mean...

Quote from: sami on February 21, 2011, 09:13:24 PM
FYI, you are required to keep correct data in your user profile. The selected country affects on how we pay the VAT (= in EU or not), and if it's seen that people manipulate their true country of origin we may have to fix that to be IP address / location based with no user control...

Quote from: sami on May 11, 2011, 10:54:56 AM
* Aircraft lease pricing (for planes being sold by players) is updated: The minimum allowed price for aircraft on the market declines according to the age of the sale listing. Normally minimum allowed sale price is 70% of the a/c value (to prevent cheating), but if the plane is for sale longer than 25 days without anyone buying it the minimum allowed sale price will start to decline (allowing player to discount it more to attract more buyers). The final and lowest allowed price is 30% of plane value and it is obtained after ~150 days on the market. Please note that if the plane is taken off the market and put there back again the date of listing resets and so then does the price reduction factor.

Quote from: sami on May 11, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
That would take 4+ game months so don't know if anyone has the patience for that?

Quote from: sami on May 20, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
[...]
In any case it is a very complicated thing and by no chance will be modeled here.

Quote from: alexgv1 on May 21, 2011, 09:17:01 PM
I don't know about anybody else but I'm really liking the look of, and excited about, this enhanced View Airlines page  8)

Quote from: Jona L. on May 21, 2011, 09:40:36 PM
I can't await (sic)the new Dashboard :)

Quote from: Curse on July 02, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
If 2) the number you named (30pax/day = 3 times, 150pax/day = 5 times) are very high and don't solve the problem, because the problem was always 1x narrowbody like 737-400 vs. 4x prop like F27. So the 5 flights on a 150pax/day route doesn't change anything compared to the current system

Quote from: FAA-man on July 09, 2011, 05:33:40 AM
unknown if this has been asked or not.. but, here it goes... it has been a while since I have played a game on here...
Anyway, within the new updated game play, will there be the option to merge airlines or buy out another airline if both parties involved agree to do so? example... say two airlines in one alliance, one player does not or can not continue to play.. but another person wishes to combine that airline with their own.. can this take place?

Quote* Changes to loan terms; any new unsecured loans have now higher interest margins than before, and compared to secured loans. Max loan period is limited to 6 years instead of 10y; as taking out relatively small loans with very long payment period was rather easy on the airline's finances (the max. repayment time will be possibly tied to loan amount in the future).

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 24, 2011, 02:33:16 AM
Great to see these changes.  Higher margin on unsecured, lower margin on secured loans.  Shorter repayment period on unsecured loans.

Maybe fully secured loans could qualify for longer repayment periods (10+ years).

Quote from: zimjiggaxxx on January 26, 2013, 07:23:07 PM
Lets hope that the AI's arent too many coz I think at times this game is not fair as the AI's have too much resources to put one's airline out of buisness

Quote from: JonesyUK on January 26, 2013, 08:24:18 PM
AI's?? ???

Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 04, 2013, 06:02:20 AM
Looks like some user friendly admin tools added, Fuel index etc:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg251037.html#msg251037

Suggestion to Admin: use these tools in MT7  :)

The fuel price seem to be stuck for last 10 game years...

Quote from: brique on February 04, 2013, 07:48:18 AM

careful what you wish for... 'unsticking' it may just send it higher...  :-\

Quote from: sami on February 25, 2013, 05:41:59 PM
No

Quote from: sami on February 25, 2013, 05:41:59 PM
No

Quote from: swiftus27 on February 25, 2013, 09:17:38 PM
Yes?

Quote from: sami on April 21, 2013, 03:23:14 PM
(just using ipad to test this but cannot figure how I could attach a screencap to this forum post directly, the apple's ui is rather poor partly....)

Quote from: hmellouli on May 16, 2013, 01:31:12 PM
when you click on attach in the forum page, it will ask you whether you want to take video/phote or use existing. click on existing, camera roll, and the screen cap will be the first one.

Quote from: sami on May 16, 2013, 01:37:17 PM
Nope, doesn't work. iPad's browser is buggy and does not allow file attachments - does not allow the file choosing button to be pressed. (googled it earlier; ipad2 ios5)

QuoteIf you wish to manually perform A or B checks the links will redirect you to scheduling page that auto-opens the A/B maintenance window where you can tick "perform the check now" like already currently.

Quote from: swiftus27 on June 28, 2013, 10:32:06 AM
You almost never do a manual B check in this game.

Quote from: Pukeko on July 03, 2013, 08:09:07 PM
How do I view airline market share on a route now. I can't figure it out.

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2013, 08:10:34 PM
The same way as always before, pop up the route planning data from the globe icon or use the route planning page search tools.

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2013, 08:17:14 PM
Aa oh yes, the popup data has only limited information, since I don't wish to load the maps on the popups, so market share was taken out there too. ..good/bad?

normal: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/LFBO/EGLL/?go=1
popup: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/LFBO/EGLL/

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2013, 08:17:14 PM
Aa oh yes, the popup data has only limited information, since I don't wish to load the maps on the popups, so market share was taken out there too. ..good/bad?

normal: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/LFBO/EGLL/?go=1
popup: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/LFBO/EGLL/

Quote from: BD on July 03, 2013, 11:10:10 PM
Question re:  Route Planning Screen

There is a new section that shows the Passenger Type Distribution - is that referring to the raw Demand for that Route (i.e. correlating to the first bar on the daily demand graph), what MY airline is carrying (i.e. correlating to the last bar for each day), or what ALL airlines are carrying (i.e. correlating to the green bar for each day)?

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2013, 08:17:14 PM
Aa oh yes, the popup data has only limited information, since I don't wish to load the maps on the popups, so market share was taken out there too. ..good/bad?

normal: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/LFBO/EGLL/?go=1
popup: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/LFBO/EGLL/

Quote from: JetWestInc on July 03, 2013, 11:40:26 PM
The big downside to not having maps is it severely limits a users ability to find a viable tech stop point. Not such an issue in MT, but a big hit in JA and early in DOTM games.

Quote from: Kadachiman on July 05, 2013, 02:30:41 PM
The new layout works fine on my Commodore 64 ... lol

Quote from: sami on July 05, 2013, 02:28:06 PM
(improvement suggestions to the features forum for later usage/searching as always)

Quote from: sami on July 06, 2013, 01:16:15 PM
You already have the time converter function for that.

Quote from: tvdan1043 on July 03, 2013, 10:19:05 PM
I really don't like not being able to manually do a B-check without scheduling checks. Especially now that moving a schedule doesn't allow you to do a B-check on the plane you're moving the schedule to. So now I have to actually schedule A & B checks on the idle plane so it can get a B-check, and then move the routes (including the A&B check schedule) from the active plane to the idle plane. I was ok losing the manual B-check on the maintenance page when I thought we could still trigger a B-check from the "move schedule" function, but we need either one or the other.

Quote from: marcel25 on July 06, 2013, 07:03:52 PM
How long will it take for the game not working operation can not launch any aircraft explamari signal and it gives me a folder with a red mark!

QuoteCould please someone from Italy take care of him ?

Quote from: ezzeqiel on July 06, 2013, 01:24:07 PM
I know... but the time converter sees every day in the whole game as 20mins/day... in the future days will be longer... I was asking if there's a way for the calculation to include the day length change...


"31-Dec-2019 of game time equals (approx.) June 01, 2014, 09:54 PM of real time. "... that's 65 years of gameplay at 20mins/day... since the days will be longer, the real gameplay will also be longer than 10 months 24 days...

Quote from: SamiAa, yes, the game itself does not YET know of the longer future days.. That is coming next week

Quote from: knobbygbYes, no offence to the guy as I am sure he is just struggling with the language but he has sent me personally around 10 personal messages asking for advice and I really don't have the time or language to help.  He is obviously REALLY struggling and it's a shame nobody can help him.

Quote from: Suavis on July 06, 2013, 07:20:53 PM
+1

I used the manual B-checks quite often for my planes listed on the UM or planes with outdated checks being returned from a Lessee.  

Quote from: Sanabas on July 07, 2013, 10:21:08 AM
Other issue with this is that I assume the 'credits to complete' displayed are incorrect. Hope next week's fix will change that one, too.

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on July 07, 2013, 04:48:22 PM
Another thing I noticed is that you can no longer reconfigure an aircraft's seating while it's already in maintenance. You used to be able to - and the extra time was just added on to the maintenance.  Now it's necessary to wait until you get it back and then reconfigure it.  Easy to forget to do this.

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on July 07, 2013, 05:50:59 AM
Yes, no offence to the guy as I am sure he is just struggling with the language but he has sent me personally around 10 personal messages asking for advice and I really don't have the time or language to help.  He is obviously REALLY struggling and it's a shame nobody can help him.

Quote from: lospaziale on July 07, 2013, 09:23:56 PM
If you need help, I'm italian  ;D

Quote from: Sami
Another change is that handling costs are lower than before for smaller airports, for large airports costs are unchanged. Country's overall cost level is not yet a factor in these costs (like in salaries they are).

AWS assumes ground handling is done by the airport, but in the future separate handling contracts may be added as a new feature (similar to fuel contracts).


(aircraft types mentioned above are rough examples and the actual cost varies between each type of plane, so costs above are approximations)

As noted by the previous post, another change is coming later which takes better into account how busy the airport is with these costs.

Quote from: Sanabas on July 18, 2013, 05:03:09 PM
I like the looks of this. Do I rerun my 9 seater test airline now, or wait for emptiness of airport/cheapness of labour to make them even more viable?

Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 06, 2013, 09:26:14 PM
In addition to loss of demand bars in the airport selection section of new routes, I miss the option to look at available slots on the route planning page.  In the old version, if you got 0 slots, you could click on the icon and get the airport slot page up so you could see quickly where whether there were available slots close by.  This has now gone - the "?" just tells you the daily sloty cost.  There seems to be no way other than opening a new window with the airport info page on - hardly "optimised for mobile devices" !


Can this be re-instated please?

MD

Quote from: Sanabas on July 18, 2013, 05:03:09 PM
Do I rerun my 9 seater test airline now, or wait for emptiness of airport/cheapness of labour to make them even more viable?

Quote from: sami

Examples (large airport [5], year 2010):
Plane   Old cost     New cost  
B777 (v.large)   $1850   $2000
A320 (large)   $1200   $1200
ATR (med)   $790   $560
DHC6 (small)   $550   $150

Examples (middlesize airport [3], year 2010):
Plane   Old cost     New cost  
B777 (v.large)   $1750   $1850
A320 (large)   $1100   $1000
ATR (med)   $690   $420
DHC6 (small)   $450   $94


Examples (tiny airport [1], year 2010):
Plane   Old cost     New cost  
ATR (med)   $480   $300
DHC6 (small)   $240   $50

QuoteAs noted by the previous post, another change is coming later which takes better into account how busy the airport is with these costs.

QuotePlease do note that all airports start at the cost level "1" with the launch of the feature (and with the start of a new game world) and the costs will scale up or down slowly depending on the airport traffic from now on

Quote from: sami on July 24, 2013, 07:31:57 PM
The staff moving between bases and pilot retraining is planned for the near future. However, staff cannot move between bases that are not in the same country then.

Generally speaking though, you cannot move 1000 people from one city to another just like that and expect them to be happy...

Quote from: schro on July 24, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
Happens all the time in the US. Staff have the option of moving/commuting or losing their seniority....

Either way, this is a fairly significant and sudden change to the staffing model, and in a way, it feels like the cure is worse than the original disease (collection of bug reports).

Quote from: dmoose42 on July 24, 2013, 03:32:47 AM
Sami is there any maximum on the value that the landing fees can reach (and other fees also)?  LHR is already at 18,43 (started at 10).  I was just wondering if this was going to grow indefinitely or whether or not their was some limit to it...

edit...now up to 18,66...

Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 25, 2013, 05:47:30 AM

And what happens when you close a base? Does it now fire all those staff and basically wipe out your CI?

Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 25, 2013, 05:47:30 AM
And what happens when you close a base? Does it now fire all those staff and basically wipe out your CI?

Quote from: sami on July 25, 2013, 02:58:00 PM
No, and where are you getting this? Closing a base merely moves the staff to HQ. It has always been like that.

Quote from: sami on July 25, 2013, 02:58:00 PM
No, and where are you getting this? Closing a base merely moves the staff to HQ. It has always been like that.

Quote from: sami on July 25, 2013, 02:58:00 PM
No, and where are you getting this? Closing a base merely moves the staff to HQ. It has always been like that.

Quote from: sami on September 10, 2013, 08:25:26 PM
Any feedback on the base airport finder 'wizard'  .. if you've had a chance to test it?

Quote from: sami on July 31, 2013, 07:40:06 PM
Domestic A-B-C has been in "to do" list but so are many other things too.  :P

Basically works so that you'd sell tickets for A-B, A-C, C-A and B-A while route is A-B-C. This allows you to fly small routes (since B-C is not sold).

(* domestic = intra-EU in modern times too)

Quote from: Sami
* Route image (RI) related effects on passenger demand calculation have been updated / adjusted. The RI effect is now more clearly visible, and works properly in case of multiple flights. (as always you can attract about 20-40% of the potential demand with 0 RI (depending on the demand) if all other variables remain "standard". Lowering ticket prices may attract more demand even with low RI)

* Some adjustments has been made on how airport slots are randomly released.

* Also some adjustments has been made to demand at the start of new game. It is a slow growth globally as usual, but another calculation has been added there making very high demand routes smaller at the beginning of the game.

* Route image growth rate is adjusted to be a bit slower when going up and faster when going down (12 months 0 -> 100, and 8 months 100 -> 0).

* Marketing adjusted so that it's not possible to achieve high (>50) company image values if you have a very small airline (fleet size).

* Dashboard items "alliance forum" and "press releases" moved a bit higher on the page.

Quote from: LemonButt on September 10, 2013, 10:07:21 PM
Ask Jona L.  He's BK'd in DOTM like 6 times now :P

Quote from: sami on October 07, 2013, 05:19:01 PM
I'll change it so that 'create next day' button will use the same flight number, if the origin flight is planned 1x weekly. That should do it for most...?

Quote from: sami on October 07, 2013, 05:19:01 PM
I'll change it so that 'create next day' button will use the same flight number, if the origin flight is planned 1x weekly. That should do it for most...?

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 07, 2013, 10:39:00 PM
I haven't seen it in action yet, but it would be great if it was collapsible / expandable.

Quote from: rubiohiguey on October 08, 2013, 12:53:30 PM
Also, on routes page, is it possible to add a link that will display all routes at once, instead of clicking next, next, next?

Quote from: schro on October 08, 2013, 01:32:39 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but if you're looking at opening route planning pages for a number of routes, I would suggest right clicking and opening them in a new tab (or click your mousewheel). That will allow you to have the search window open along with however many route pages that you want.

Quote from: rubiohiguey on October 08, 2013, 04:05:05 PM
Nope, what I mean is under -> Routes -> Manage Routes, only a part of the routes is displayed, and then you have to click "Next Page" on the bottom.

I would like a link (or settings option) where all routes would be displayed at once, without having to click next page, next page, next page ...

Quote from: sami
You can now assign the same flight number for multiple individual flights. The requirements are that the routes must be to the same destination and on different days (local departure day from base airport); aircraft type or departure time makes no difference...
Please note that this change has no effect on current routes that have _different_ flight numbers. So I'd request all players who use this 7 day method to create flights with the same flight numbers from now on.

Quote* Some changes to airport slot pricings:

- The new slot fees for monopoly position (>50% of owned slots at any large airport that is slot limited) are increased.

- A new calculation to dynamic slot costs that checks how many slots your airline has acquired from this airport in the near past, scaling costs according to this (= lots of new slots in the last two months will increase the costs). This discourages airlines to get large amount of slots from airports at once batch (= when they are released) giving others better chances when they become too expensive for the one. The settings and costs are scaled so that it does not limit normal airlines opening a few new routes every week.

- Also some other minor adjustments.

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 10:03:36 AM
*Samistuff


UTTER NONSENSE !  I will close all my airlines and go and play airlinesim instantly, as will other players I have spoken to !  This is a step to far for me.

Quote from: Maarten Otto on October 10, 2013, 10:08:09 AM
Come come.... He made a mistake and by staying polite we get more done then threatening that we go and play elsewhere. Everyone can make mistakes. That's a human factor.

Think someone in Finland is already making new code....  ;)

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 10:16:19 AM
For the "ultimate slot solution" in the long term, if any, please post ideas here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49624.0.html

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 10:39:24 AM
I do feel that you are widely now making this a bigger issue than it is

Quote from: saftfrucht on October 10, 2013, 10:53:14 AM
I will check the effect of the revised change when there is the next slot drop in LAX

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 10:39:24 AM
Edit: Another check out of interest: SAC who has gotten 120 new slots in last 2 months is getting a single slot from AMS on saturday at 15.50. Previous cost was ~450k, new cost is ~570k. Not a drastic change in my mind?

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 10:55:09 AM
You can already check that using the single slots available there (weekend days for example). Just multiply by 7. Of course depends on how many new routes you have opened previously, but it shouldn't exceed the 120-130 what the example below has.

Quote from: saftfrucht on October 10, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
The way I understood it from alliance members who had a slot drop, the costs of slot grew exponentially, so looking at the cost of single slots is not really representative.

Quote from: Lavo on October 10, 2013, 11:37:47 AM
So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

Quote from: Lavo on October 10, 2013, 11:37:47 AM
So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

What about in a decent sized airport with 2 smaller players. Heaps of room for expansion for all, but because 1 player has greater than 50% of the slots purchased so far, he's going to get penalized?

Quote from: Lavo on October 10, 2013, 11:37:47 AM
So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

What about in a decent sized airport with 2 smaller players. Heaps of room for expansion for all, but because 1 player has greater than 50% of the slots purchased so far, he's going to get penalized?

I can see why it's in place for Heathrow, etc, but that's going to kill a lot of other places

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2013, 12:00:06 PM
So the purpose this change served was to punish a more successful airline for being too successful...

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 11:56:28 AM
No, not correct ..

The anti-monopoly fee has been there always, and it kicks in when airport is slot controlled (no or very few free slots), and only if one airline (you) owns more than 50% of the slots. The cost factor has been increased a bit in that case, that is the only change - the principle here has not changed at all.

If your "slot share" is 100% but there are free slots, there are no changes.

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
As most other changes have been orientated towards going back for some time !  What is needed is a "brutal" level of game where all these silly restrictions that protect lesser active players are lifted and those who want to be in a proper battle and end up being massive can do so....but enter at your own risk !  I for one would love that  ;D

Quote from: brique on October 10, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
as posted by sami : ' - The new slot fees for monopoly position (>50% of owned slots at any large airport that is slot limited) are increased.'

So its not across-the-board at all airports, just the usual problematic ones...

Quote from: brique on October 10, 2013, 12:09:55 PM
that would be scary : AWS - Armageddon : but could be enormous fun too :)

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
As most other changes have been orientated towards going back for some time !  What is needed is a "brutal" level of game where all these silly restrictions that protect lesser active players are lifted and those who want to be in a proper battle and end up being massive can do so....but enter at your own risk !  I for one would love that  ;D

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 11:56:28 AM
No, not correct ..

The anti-monopoly fee has been there always, and it kicks in when airport is slot controlled (no or very few free slots),  and only if one airline (you) owns more than 50% of the slots, all slots - taken and available ones. The cost factor has been increased a bit in that case, that is the only change - the principle here has not changed at all. And that cost too is relative to the amount of slots you own, so it's not "5 million more at the minute you have 50% slots". So unless you own 80% of LHR's all slots, it's not an issue to worry of.

If your "slot share" is 100% but there are free slots, there are no changes. (= mostly the case for a small airport)

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 12:05:37 PM
As most other changes have been orientated towards going back for some time !  What is needed is a "brutal" level of game where all these silly restrictions that protect lesser active players are lifted and those who want to be in a proper battle and end up being massive can do so....but enter at your own risk !  I for one would love that  ;D

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2013, 12:22:49 PM
  But outgrowing the competition, reaching 50% of slots?

Quote from: Maarten Otto on October 10, 2013, 12:38:31 PM
What is the purpose of a 'beginners world' if any game world is slowly transferred into one?

Don't like you can't get LHR slots... THEN DON'T BASE THERE!!!! Join a beginners world if you need protection and can't face people who know how to run an airline in this game.

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 12:42:27 PM
Now we're getting to the point IMO !  It is obvious that the worlds biggest airports will be slot locked by big airlines.  Don't like it - don't base there !  But what is happening is just a few airlines are moaning forcing Sami into changes that are just not needed which now brings displeasure to many !  Maybe Sami should have just sent the moaners a PM saying "That is what happens at JFK. Why not try beginers world !"

Quote from: Maarten Otto on October 10, 2013, 12:48:02 PM
Remember ABCBA.... Lost for over 2 years now.... or was it 3?  That could make expansive slots at least a bit more financial viable as the BC section could come in relatively cheap compared to the home base slots.

But I believe asking the return of some freedom of the sky ABCA and ABCBA is like asking the pope to say kicking a homosexual is a sin.

Quote from: exchlbg on October 10, 2013, 12:50:55 PM
Moaning (like right here now) was not by beginners, but always by other experienced players who where not lucky to win the LHR race.
Why not giving it a try and just wait a little time before grabbing new slots because new system is time sensitive and prizes drop if you make a pause inbetween two grabs.

Quote from: LemonButt on October 10, 2013, 12:48:32 PM
Yes--airlines at slot restricted airlines should enjoy a monopoly with no competition from the outside world.  It's not even a matter of the airlines that are based there, but those that aren't that make it literally impossible to compete against those who are based there.  Heaven forbid they actually have to play the game and compete against other airlines.  If all you want to do is click/deploy without using any brainpower, there are plenty of other games on the net you can play.  I'm pretty sure sami doesn't want to dumb the game down so that 4th graders can dominate though.

Quote from: schro on October 10, 2013, 12:56:21 PM
I think the root cause of the MT9 fiasco is the incredibly slow pace that slots have dropped thus far in the game world....

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2013, 01:02:58 PM
The competition would be there if the airport has enough slots to serve all of its demand and then some (for competition).

Creating competition, a horse race, by shooting the leading horse is not exactly the best way to go.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2013, 01:07:49 PM
And the 50% slot reduction at the start of the game world.  I always thought it was a bad idea...

Quote from: LemonButt on October 10, 2013, 01:11:05 PMSlots are more expensive now and thus more scarce for players, therefore they have to work smarter to maximize their profits using those scarce resources. 

Quote from: LemonButt on October 10, 2013, 01:11:05 PM
I think we're talking about two different things and I agree that shooting the leading horse isn't the solution, but forcing them to play smarter versus harder is the solution.  It goes back to opportunity cost and economics being the study of how businesses use their scarce resources to maximize their profits.  Slots are more expensive now and thus more scarce for players, therefore they have to work smarter to maximize their profits using those scarce resources.  The current system is I get a slot to everyone else's detriment.  As long as that is the rule of the land (versus an exclusive slot pool as I proposed with terminals), you have to do something to make sure players aren't hogging all the slots and making it literally impossible to compete against them.

QuoteExamples: If he would have taken 100 new slots (from this given airport) during last 2 game days and another 120 during last 60 game days cost would have been $800k per slot instead of $570k (120 during 60 days), and base cost in this example (no new slots in 60 days) is the mentioned ~470k. (And 120 slots means 1 new operation every day, 17hrs/day which is very much, and 100+120 (the first $800k example) is already a huge amount...). These numbers are just single examples though, just to show the scale. But in practical terms nobody is ever getting 200+ slots in 60 game days really, so the first example (about 1.8x of original cost) is rather theoretical.

Quote from: LemonButt on October 10, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
Again, slots taken by players at the detriment of others, so the only way to ensure availability is by a gradual release of slots to give everyone a fair shot.

Quote from: LemonButt on October 10, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
It goes back again to giving each player an exclusive slot pool via terminals.  It's like democracy--it's a terrible system, but it's the best we've got.

Quote from: loziobiz on October 10, 2013, 01:56:55 PM
Sorry guys but Sami wrote this:
How can this be such terrible?
This is not killing the leading horse, this is trying to avoid slot hogging that is simply unfair.

Quote from: loziobiz on October 10, 2013, 01:56:55 PM
Sorry guys but Sami wrote this:
How can this be such terrible?
This is not killing the leading horse, this is trying to avoid slot hogging that is simply unfair.

Quote from: Maarten Otto on October 10, 2013, 02:06:31 PM
Right, so if you need 4 slots a day for your aircraft to be financially viable then your called a slot hogger. The fact that this is done by a 30 seater with the SAME amount of staff needed (minus cabin crew) as for a A380 doesn't count. If I would be slot hogging I would have operated 10 daily flights between Glasgow and Luton. As I recal correctly I operate 4 or 5 return flights a day. So that is 120 to 150 seats... around 25% of the daily demand.   Yes, that is called slot hogging.

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 02:14:46 PM
This was after Sami toned down his initial changes.  Still think this should not be done mid game, and that slot charges should be the same for everyone though !

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 03:04:19 PM
I don't see this as a LOL Jona !!   Would you have ordered this if these changes were planned and announced in advance ?  I am sure you wouldn't, hence why changes like made today cannot possibly me made mid-game.  Maybe you can PM Sami and he can cancel this order for you and get your money back.  Can you see anyone at large airports flying this type anymore ?

Quote from: [SC] Jona L. on October 10, 2013, 03:16:00 PM
LOL I'm not the poor guy having done that. Just someone else I saw, who probably hasn't seen the announcement.

Quote from: loziobiz on October 10, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
If he can schedule new planes once delivered (3-4 set every 2 weeks?) I don't see how the new system can hurt him.

Quote from: half on October 10, 2013, 05:47:32 PM
I mean without reading the press release of CityLinQ i would have not knows this. Will try to find out how bad it is for me.

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 05:26:47 PM
Jona, very well written, and I hope Sami does not take it the wrong way.

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 05:26:47 PM
I can add that the overwhelming view from our entire alliance of 25 airlines echos exactly what you say.  Nobody within Elite has stated any support for the changes,

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 05:26:47 PM
None of us signed up for a game where this would happen.  Your customers Sami, in the main, are totally against this, and only a handfull of airlines that have struggled getting slots will benefit in any way (but they too will also suffer the effects).  Is it really worth rocking the boat and upsetting so many customers so much for just a few to mildly benefit ?

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 05:26:47 PM
I think this would be proved if a poll was run, hence why it has been closed, and what more evidence is needed than Elite and SC actually agreeing on something  :laugh:

Quote from: SAC on October 10, 2013, 05:26:47 PM
Please consider putting things back to how they were, and lets all get involved in thrashing out a new workable system that everyone will be happy with and can be implemented when the next game starts, as the unannounced introduction of this, and the knock on effects, are huge to many types of airlines in many ways in games that are already running.

Quoteso if you need 4 slots a day for your aircraft to be financially viable then your called a slot hogger

Quote from: [SC] Jona L. on October 10, 2013, 04:20:05 PM
If you guys properly read what sami wrote, you will notice he spoke of MONTHS not WEEKS.

So if you get 4 of those planes in 2 mths that is 12-20 slot sets in 2 months, or as a matter of fact costs in high 8 digits if not 9 digits in total. and with 20 of those coming, presumably within one year, he'll be incurring costs nearing the BILLION dollars for slots, and I don't think an airline with 20ish 320s can support that for scheduling ATRS which are already hard to get a return on in the first place.

Quote from: [SC] Jona L. on October 10, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
With a truly random system no one could figure out how slots are released (as it must have happened now as far as I understand the fuzz).

Quote
And in EVERY MMOG the users with the most online time have the biggest advantages, AWS is and can technically not be an exception to this.

QuoteSami, I don't understand why you shut down my vote, I haven't made it to insult someone

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 08:59:16 PM
Well, has anyone figured it out? Not heard of it at least, and this update was not because of that.

Quote from: CUR$E on October 10, 2013, 09:11:57 PM
Yes.

Quote from: CUR$E on October 10, 2013, 09:11:57 PM
Yes.

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 09:22:18 PM
Also out of interest, here are the last occurences when new slots were released to airports in MT#9 (game time) and how many airports the update round affected:

1999-03-24, 105 airports updated
1999-04-03, 472 airports
1999-04-16, 400 airports
1999-05-06, 552 airports

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2013, 10:18:32 PM
Is that an indication of a more slot releases, looking at the jump from 105 airports affected to ~450 for last 3 slot releases

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 09:22:18 PM
Well, PM me about that then, and I can then comment if the observations are true or not.


(Though in case it would have been figured out, why I am not surprised at all to see one figuring some game advantage and not informing about it (to improve it), and instead keeping the info to his/mates advantage, eh?)

Quote from: CUR$E on October 10, 2013, 10:22:35 PM
I and others told you in public and private directly after you implemented the so falsely called "random" system it can be exploited. You ignored half about those information and rejected the other half.

Quote from: CUR$E on October 10, 2013, 10:22:35 PM
thus why you made those changes now.

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 10:24:41 PM
That's funny since I cannot seem to recall? Any links to these public threads? (though it may be possible too that I have missed something)

(Or did you really still think slots appear every month's 3rd day or whatever it was previously? ..the randomization has been in 'full' effect since 11/2012)

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2013, 10:43:04 PM
I seem to recall I informed Sami of the issue

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2013, 10:45:33 PM
This I do somewhat faintly remember and after that the latest changes on the matter were made (11/2012) if I am not mistaken.

Quote from: brique on October 10, 2013, 11:00:16 PM
have to say, I'm surprised by all the fuss being made : seems to me that very little has actually changed and we are seeing a massive knee-jerk reaction from some who feel it will hinder their current 'strategy' ; which is what, exactly?

Quote from: brique on October 10, 2013, 11:00:16 PM
and it does leave some unpleasant possible explanations : that maybe the random drops are not so random after all, for some, or that the current limitations on re-loading slot availability are not working as they should, for some. The how of it isnt necessarily important right now : but the winner-takes-all approach does work much better when you know you are more likely to be that winner.

Quote from: brique on October 10, 2013, 11:00:16 PM
Okay, that's sensitive ground to be walking on, and I am categorically not saying anyone is being  dishonest : but when the casino sees a player win ten times in a row, it knows the possibility is that it could be genuine good fortune, but the probability is that something is not working as it should be.

Quote from: Kadachiman on October 10, 2013, 11:56:20 PM
Lets face it - how do some of these Mega Airlines get so big? Is it exceptional game play? or is it a combination of good game play and something else?.... I will leave that up to you to decide.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2013, 12:12:05 AM
It is very simple.  All of the big airlines used the LH "exploit".  Not really exploit any more since it is public info.  I posted on it numerous times and suggested ways to close it, as in here:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,46457.0.html

Quote from: Kadachiman on October 10, 2013, 11:56:20 PM
I do recall threads where players had worked out the slot release times...so I have to agree with Curse on this one...and if memory serves me correctly he was one of the few people that did highlight 'the bug'

There was one particular alliance where the majority of its members took the alternative path of 'taking advantage of this bug' rather than reporting it (they are mentioned earlier in this thread) and as a result 3 or 4 of the leading 'culprits' were given a very small slap across the wrist in the form of a financial penalty...the lead culprit went onto win the Game World.
The alliance even went to great lengths to defend their actions to other players with public posts.

So if this change is aimed at stopping that type of gaming abuse again, then I am all for it.

Lets face it - how do some of these Mega Airlines get so big? Is it exceptional game play? or is it a combination of good game play and something else?.... I will leave that up to you to decide.

Quote from: AUpilot77 on October 11, 2013, 12:29:51 AM
Exactly! If a strategy is open and not dubbed illegal or a bug, I don't see how it can be considered an "exploit".  The whole point of this simulation is to try to figure out the best way to get to an end goal.  If its available and it works then why not use it?  I'm really hoping we aren't turning into a group of people that say succeeding is illegal.  :-\

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2013, 02:02:13 AM
Flying LH with older aircraft can be profitable to begin with.  But it does have its risks.  The D checks of old aircraft, even a series of C checks can put an airline into serious jeopardy.  There have been many large BKs in the past of airlines pursuing this strategy that did not manage to transition to a sustainable aircraft quickly enough...

Quote from: Maarten Otto on October 11, 2013, 07:17:55 AM
I moaned simply for the reason that I wasn't fond of such systems being introduced mid game. I am not against such system at all, just against the way it was thrown upon us.

Quote from: LemonButt on October 18, 2013, 07:56:03 PM
Don't like the new maps.  I liked the orange lines better than the red, mostly due to the fact the markers are red.  The current markers look fine for the alliance maps, but there needs to be smaller markers for the airline flight maps because they are (usually) much closer together and cluttered than the alliance map.  IMO the base airports should have the markers and the destinations just dots--it would make it much easier to figure out what you're looking at.  Here is the mess I have for my airline:

Quote from: Maarten Otto on October 19, 2013, 08:36:32 AM
It looks aggressive, bloody and clutters a lot. It's not ''easy'' for the eyes.

Quote from: Aoitsuki on October 22, 2013, 03:47:43 PM
the new route map adjustment looks good! Especially the mouse over to see destination(which I do not recall exist before...) thanks sami!

Quote from: saftfrucht on December 08, 2013, 03:35:55 PM
Automated checking: Good.
Having to manually repost them after their checks expire: Not good.

Storage Fee: HELL NO! Can't believe the lemonbutthurt whiners got their will again. $500 per day for a wide body are completely off the chart unrealistic, that's  half of what a Class A airport like FRA charges for a day of parking, certainly not even remotely close what some remote places charge.

Quote from: LemonButt on December 08, 2013, 04:23:22 PM
Ummm...my ultimate idea was to freeze the calendar for C/D checks while they were listed for sale, not what was implemented.  Also, the storage fee was an issue because so many airlines were buying aircraft with never having any intention of flying them (see the screenshot: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49005.msg283772.html#msg283772).  It wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't at the detriment of other players.  IMO the storage fee isn't going to do anything to change the game dynamics so not sure what the big deal is.  $500/day = $15000/month = next to nothing.  The fee might as well be zero. People are still going to buy aircraft they never plan on flying and jam up production lines for those who actually want the airframes.

Perhaps if people didn't abuse the system these changes wouldn't be necessary?

Quote from: JetWestInc on December 08, 2013, 05:06:48 PM
First, parking fee. I gave you a link to average parking fees at the Victorville, California storage facility. It was $1400/WEEK for a widebody aircraft. You are asking $500/DAY. The largest airports in the WORLD don't charge $500/day.

Quote from: sami on December 08, 2013, 07:01:15 PM
Correct. Long-term stored planes have no other costs, while short-term parked (idle or for sale) have the regular insurance costs etc (and the short-term parking cost only ticks if you have more than 10 planes idle/for sale in total so it doesn't affect the small operators or any daily scheduling changes you may do; and the cost is also rather small anyway). And to get out of long-term storage all the checks need to be made, while short-term parking is fully automatic.


(edit; also just added the option to scrap a plane while being in long-term storage .. as of course wouldn't make any sense to first bring it out of storage with all C/D checks just to scrap it .. normal scrapping rules apply.)

Quote from: saftfrucht on December 08, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
What's the rationale behind not counting mothballed aircraft toward CV?

Quote from: saftfrucht on December 08, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
What's the rationale behind not counting mothballed aircraft toward CV?

Quote from: LemonButt on December 08, 2013, 07:18:15 PM
In the accounting world, they would call this salvage cost or sunk costs.  If you paid $10 million for a plane and is useless, it is listed as a depreciated/dead asset on the balance sheet.  You wouldn't mothball/park in the desert to rot an asset that had value, would you?  Not counting it towards CV makes sense, but IMO there should be other efforts (brokers) to keep the aircraft in the available population for other players.  Any price greater than zero is better than paying fees to park.  With current broker settings though, it doesn't matter if the price is infinity or zero--you can't sell it.

Quote from: LemonButt on December 08, 2013, 07:18:15 PM
In the accounting world, they would call this salvage cost or sunk costs. 

Quote from: sami on December 08, 2013, 07:01:15 PM
the short-term parking cost only ticks if you have more than 10 planes idle/for sale in total

Quote from: schro on December 08, 2013, 10:29:52 PM
The concepts being added for plane management seem a bit extreme and basically kill an ant with an acme anvil dropped from a 10,000ft tall cliff. The main issue getting addressed was the littered used market which could have easily been resolved with a MX validation filter.

Either way, since this is a sudden and significant change to game mechanics, it is not fair to implement the changes with a mere 5 day warning towards the end of a weekend. This gives players a work week to schedule all their planes or face stiff penalties. For airlines that have 100+ planes to dispose of or otherwise schedule, this is NOT a fair amount of time to give to them. For example, I'm going to be plane hopping this week for work and realistically won't be able to do adapt my airlines to avoid getting bent over the barrel. I think at least a few weeks is needed especially for those of us with busy schedules and limited time (as we often get stuff done in spurts as time allows).

Additionally, I do not see the point of removing a plane's value from CV when it is in long term storage. This will make it easy to obfuscate the health of an airline by manually adjusting CV through swapping planes in and out of storage. Additionally, it goes against the sim's accounting model that bases CV on the value of owned assets minus liabilities. There is no concept of depreciation or useful life implemented AT ALL, only the concept of market value. Since an airline could take a plane out of storage and place on the used market at any time for that "value" there's really no loss of value to the company  (unlike in the real world, where a plane with no salvage value or prospect for sale would have to be marked down to zero).

QuoteThis is calculated automatically daily, and only applies if you have more than 10 planes "idle" (= no routes or for sale) at the same time.

Quote from: [SC] xyeahtony on December 08, 2013, 11:33:41 PM
So basically the alliance full of airlines that like to hoarde 300+ useless planes to inflate their CVs are upset with this new change. Not too surprising.

In the real world, major airlines also don't have 100+ parked 737s or DC10s, etc.

Quote from: [SC] - lilius on December 08, 2013, 11:53:08 PM
Ok we are discussing a small fee for parking the planes against keeping a fleet of 20 planes grounded for maybe half a year on a slow production line. It must be alot more expensive to keep planes grounded waiting for a set of seven as you are already doing than paying the fee of parking even if there is no direct cost attached to it today. Right Jumbo?

Quote from: [SC] xyeahtony on December 08, 2013, 11:33:41 PM
So basically the alliance full of airlines that like to hoarde 300+ useless planes to inflate their CVs are upset with this new change. Not too surprising.

In the real world, major airlines also don't have 100+ parked 737s or DC10s, etc.

Quote from: [SC] xyeahtony on December 08, 2013, 11:33:41 PM
So basically the alliance full of airlines that like to hoarde 300+ useless planes to inflate their CVs are upset with this new change.

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on December 09, 2013, 09:45:20 AM
If the scrapping age is to be reduced to 10 years, why not also allow ANY aircraft with an expired D Check to be scrapped?  After all, the whole point of this exercise is to encourage us to get rid of old aircraft more efficiently/promptly, yes?  You still have a minimum eight year limit but it seems a waste to have to store these a/c for two years when we know 100% we will never use them again.

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on December 09, 2013, 09:45:20 AM
I also disagree with the concept of stored a/c not counting towards CV.  Under the current financial modelling (which while incomplete and unrealistic does kinda work) this does not make sense.  How can you own something with a certain value, yet it not count towards the value of your company?  Either it has value or it doesn't.  Planes in long term storage are not worthless.  If the idea of these changes is to encourage aircraft disposal, then this is counter-intuitive:  It will make it more likely for those of us (me included sometimes) chasing "CV stats" to NOT store aircraft which we may otherwise do so.

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on December 09, 2013, 09:45:20 AM
I'm loathe to get involved as there is the usual mudslinging going on...

Generally the changes are a good idea:  :)

Making major changes mid game (AGAIN):   :o >:(   Airwaysim used to have a professional, well managed 'feel' to it - IMO at least.  It no longer does.  I like that we all get to have some input into the game, but Sami seems (again, just IMO and no offence intended) to have become more 'reactionary' and always trying to please one group of people or another.  I liked the older 'dictator' style more.  Yes, let us have out say but please feel free to ignore us more often!  Just like real democracy really, hehe.  Having said that:

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 09, 2013, 10:58:40 AM
Agreed that the aircraft in storage should have some value, so maybe the compromise would be to value aircraft in desert storage at scrap value.

Quote from: [SC] - lilius on December 09, 2013, 11:12:32 AM
Myself I enjoy these changes mid game. Remember these games are ultra long now and a bit too static in my opinion. These changes wont be in any way gamebreaking for anyone either. In real life you cant start a company and be sure that settings will be equal until the game is over either. As it is now we can pretty much see into the future.

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on December 09, 2013, 12:32:17 PM
Is it a bug  that I now can't remove an aircraft from sale because the C-Check is expired?  

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on December 09, 2013, 12:41:35 PM
There seems to be no proper user testing or version control/change tracking

Quote from: [SC] knobbygb on December 09, 2013, 12:41:35 PM
I really think these changes could be introduced in a more controlled way

Quote from: sami on December 09, 2013, 12:55:36 PM
yes, fixed.

Yes there is..

Such minor changes like these do not require a separate beta testing period. Bigger changes (like the new passenger allocation system introduced earlier) are tested separetely.

Quote from: saftfrucht on December 09, 2013, 05:19:54 AM
but no, due to some b*tch *ss crybabies (always the same guys who never manage to run a working airline, as per use) we now face severe penalties

Quote from: LemonButt on December 09, 2013, 02:52:16 PM
The problem is people abuse the system and when people abuse the system they become some of the largest airlines in the game.  Not all large airlines abuse the system, but those who abuse the system are large (I hope that makes sense).

Quote from: LemonButt on December 09, 2013, 02:52:16 PM
The new rules that hurt large airlines nearly always hurt small airlines even more because large airlines have the cashflow/capital that it any new fees/charges are nothing more than a nuisance.  If you're a small airline with 20 aircraft and can't get a broker to buy your aircraft and are forced to do heavy checks, you could end up bankrupt pretty easily.

Quote from: NorgeFly on December 09, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
Some people have been using the used market as a place to unofficially store aircraft (me included on occasion) - now they don't need to. They can either store them, sell them or scrap them.

Quote from: NorgeFly on December 09, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
The only real potential issue would be if someone had dozens of aircraft on the used market with expired checks that all now get bounced back and land up being checked at the same time. Unlikely to be a huge problem for anyone I'd imagine.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 09, 2013, 03:54:02 PM
And not doing heavy checks, either by returning the aircraft just prior, or hoping that a broker will buy an aircraft prior to D check, aircraft that is worth less than the price of D check, how is that not abusing the system?

Quote from: JetWestInc on December 10, 2013, 04:37:13 AMInstead, we now have to pay huge sums of cash to keep planes current on checks that would not have expired IRL because they are cycles and hours based as opposed to time based.

Quote from: [SC] StefanPeturs on December 10, 2013, 11:26:35 AM
I wanted to mention one thing that i noticed in recent changes,,,  payload vs. range.

Quote from: [SC] - lilius on December 09, 2013, 11:12:32 AM
Myself I enjoy these changes mid game. Remember these games are ultra long now and a bit too static in my opinion. These changes wont be in any way gamebreaking for anyone either. In real life you cant start a company and be sure that settings will be equal until the game is over either. As it is now we can pretty much see into the future.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 10, 2013, 08:18:48 PM
LOL, so AWS is more and more like RL.  In the US, Congress can pass a law that has retroactive effect.  Say, in February, that applies back to January.  Or even better, our tin pot dictator (Obama) can have a press conference and pull a new "law" out of his a$$.

So there is a great deal of unpredictability in RL, so if there is some in AWS, it is not a complete disaster...  Players will adjust...

Quote from: Captim on December 10, 2013, 09:07:18 PM
As for politics. I'll have a cup of tea with you and thank 'god' that the US president hasn't pulled a new "war" out of his A$$ lately.

Quote from: Captim on December 10, 2013, 09:07:18 PM
Unpredicitability only ever hurt the unprepared.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 10, 2013, 09:37:02 PM
He tried to do precisely that, if you were paying attention.

Quote from: brique on December 10, 2013, 03:59:49 AM
I think its been a bit missed in the mix of reactions, but one of the issues around it is that the AI brokers seem to have become very reluctant in buying aircraft, even well-maintained, reasonably aged and priced cheaply. AI brokers just dont buy as much as they used to.

Quote from: [SC] xyeahtony on December 11, 2013, 07:19:22 AM
i'm loving the swap registration numbers feature when transferring schedules to new planes. One of the best updates imho. Props to the dev. team, and thanks.

Quote from: [SC] xyeahtony on December 11, 2013, 07:19:22 AM
i'm loving the swap registration numbers feature when transferring schedules to new planes. One of the best updates imho. Props to the dev. team, and thanks.

Quote from: meiru on December 15, 2013, 04:42:46 PM
I can't wait until the "conversion" feature will get activated so that I can convert my MD-81 in MD-82 or MD-90-30 to MD-90-30 ER ... that would be so nice. Otherwise I can only scrap the aircrafts...

Quote from: saftfrucht on December 18, 2013, 01:10:13 AM
So, I have 265 aircraft up for sale in JA and got a subtraction of -35 937 948 USD for aircraft parking last week. What up?

Quote from: ekaneti on December 23, 2013, 11:31:37 AM
Hi:

I thought MX expired aircraft would be no longer offered for sale on the used market.

Quote- For leased planes there is naturally no value displayed as you are not their owner. If you wish to purchase the leased plane the buying cost is determined by the broker like previously. In case you purcase the plane the 'book value' will be the actual purchase price what you paid for it, and it will depreciate over the same rules as any purchased used aircraft.

Quote from: sami on December 30, 2013, 02:19:02 PM
"Actual value", like it used to be here, has got nothing to do with "real" accounting and such stuff, to which we'll be moving shortly.

You have a book value of the aircraft (you paid let's say $50mil of it 10 years ago and now the value of the plane in your book keeping is $25mil) and then you have a "market value" of the aircraft which depends entirely on what you wish to sell the plane for, and what it's age, condition etc are. This market value is determined by supply and demand and is not calculated by the system, but it will try to help you determine it, but in this example it could be for example $30mil .. not related to book value anyway on any level. (if you sell the plane over you book value, it's a profit, and other way around)

= Two entirely separate things now...

Quote from: [SC] b757capt on December 31, 2013, 03:57:17 AM
I'm sorry I should have clarified. I think we should be able to see an actual dollar amount of an appraised value for aircraft. The guidance provided by the adviser is just not enough for me. My two cents :-)

Quote from: LemonButt on December 31, 2013, 04:01:37 AM
sami--current scrap value is 30% and aircraft depreciate to 10%.  Does this mean that the scrap value will eventually be higher than book value or has scrap value changed also?

Quote from: JetWestInc on December 31, 2013, 07:42:42 PM
Before the update that will boot any plane with expired C/D checks off the market goes live, can we PLEASE get a mass scrap function added? I really don't have hours to waste on this, which is yet another huge mid game rule change....

Quote from: JetWestInc on December 31, 2013, 07:42:42 PM
Before the update that will boot any plane with expired C/D checks off the market goes live, can we PLEASE get a mass scrap function added? I really don't have hours to waste on this, which is yet another huge mid game rule change....

Quote from: LemonButt on December 31, 2013, 07:56:53 PM
I don't think a mass scrap function would be useful any other time than the one time rule change.  If it helps at all, I've found the easiest way to scrap aircraft is by going to the fleet tab on the aircraft info tab to find the oldest aircraft in my fleet.  Middle click the reg number, then middle click the view schedule button.  Then you can move the schedule/reg number to a newer aircraft.  Hit F5 on the aircraft info page and verify it has no routes and click scrap.  Middle click the tab to close it, wash, rinse, repeat.  If the aircraft already has no routes it's obviously much quicker...

Quote from: schro on December 31, 2013, 09:44:18 PM
he wants to scrap but has not been provided a reasonable mechanism to do that with thanks to a mid-game significant rule change.

Quote from: sami on December 31, 2013, 10:41:34 PM
This rule/functionality change was announced 3 weeks ago (& implementation postponed a bit to avoid too much hassle), so it should not come as a huge surprise anymore really ...

The aircraft market is not meant to be a storage place for the un-needed planes.


(I could "automate" the market-removal easily for the transition, but I'd guess he doesn't want each and every plane taken out of the market?  ..if yes, that's only a simple one database query.)

Quote from: sami on December 31, 2013, 10:41:34 PM
This rule/functionality change was announced 3 weeks ago (& implementation postponed a bit to avoid too much hassle), so it should not come as a huge surprise anymore really ...

Quote from: swiftus27 on January 01, 2014, 03:22:37 AM
I think there may be an anomaly based on where you live.  Your home base is home to so many ppl who still call it home but had to leave to find work elsewhere.

Quote from: schro on December 31, 2013, 09:44:18 PM
At a minimum, the expired checked planes from the market need to go to long term storage, from which they can be mass scrapped. Though, that feature request is still open, so I think you might get hosed.

He currently has 458 planes on the market. Even if he spends 15 seconds each plane, that's still going to take him 2 hours. I would also say that 15 seconds each isn't enough time as he has to 1. remove it from the market 2. scrap 3. repeat. If 458 planes get dumped off the market and into his "flying" fleet, he will end up shelling out billions for C/D checks for frames he wants to scrap but has not been provided a reasonable mechanism to do that with thanks to a mid-game significant rule change.

Quote from: dmoose42 on January 02, 2014, 12:41:26 AM
By definition it is a non-cash expense so you are only 'paying' for it in the accounting sense of the word.  You will recoup the difference in the depreciated value of the plane and the market value when you sell or scrap it.

Quote from: Monica on January 02, 2014, 12:07:09 AM
I don't understand why Sami should spend hours on changing and testing something in the code, so that a handful of players (who have had weeks to do so) doesn't have to spend the same amount of time scrapping their own aircraft... which should be a one-time job. It really doesn't matter if that person has been busy in RL.

Quote from: JetWestInc on January 02, 2014, 01:32:04 AM
which it is not, see our accounting experts posts

Quote from: sami on January 02, 2014, 01:34:30 AM
What on earth are you talking about?

edit/typos

Quote from: sami on January 02, 2014, 01:34:30 AM
And I would appreciate to tone down this "rules changing again" thing, since it really isn't by any means a big deal. If I'd decide to make everyone's tax-level 70% (just an example..), then it would be a big deal. But updating the rules to disallow "storage" of aircraft on the used aircraft market isn't a dealbreaker and that is why it will be introduced on all game worlds.

(and I did also offer assistance to your issue a few messages back, but you seems to ignore that alltogether..)


edit/typos

Quote from: dmoose42 on January 02, 2014, 01:48:31 AM
I think the issue is that a lot of people have historically used the UM to park aircraft for CV storage.  Rather than disposing of the planes, they would just sit there.  Obviously with the new rules (accounting to be implemented and UM checks - implemented shortly), there will be a significant reduction in player's willingness to park aircraft on the UM to store CV.

Quote from: dmoose42 on January 02, 2014, 01:48:31 AM
(although the option to keep planes on the UM but just paying for their checks without having to repost them would be nice)

Quote from: JetWestInc on January 02, 2014, 01:51:22 AM
I did not ignore that, it just does not help. What would help would be a) mass scrapping function b) any plane forcefully removed from the market placed into long term storage and c) the ability to view all stored aircraft on one screen in my aircraft view.

Quote from: sami on January 02, 2014, 01:51:58 AM
Use the long-term storage feature for that. Planes there will be counted towards your "company value" (= visible in balance sheet).

Quote from: sami on January 02, 2014, 01:51:58 AM



Like mentioned I can put all your for-sale planes into long-term storage with two or three database queries, takes <5mins here. But that's then ALL planes you have for sale (or alternatively a list of ID numbers which not to move, but that's slower for you than using the UI)..

Quote from: dmoose42 on January 02, 2014, 01:56:35 AM
whereas typically before they would maintain their value as the value would be the market value

Quote from: JetWestInc on January 02, 2014, 01:51:22 AM
My bad, was discussed elsewhere, not on this board. Also, was referring to new aircraft value system and not storage/scrapping.

Quote from: JetWestInc on January 02, 2014, 02:03:39 AM
Can you pull every plane but DC-10's? Would you need ID numbers of all for sale DC-10's for that?

Quote from: sami on January 02, 2014, 02:22:06 AM


(to make it short: planes have always depreciated in value, the calculation method for it has just been changed. = No big deal..    Where you have figured that plane values would not decrease over time in the old calculation method?)

Quote from: sami on January 02, 2014, 01:34:30 AM
But updating the rules to disallow "storage" of aircraft on the used aircraft market isn't a dealbreaker and that is why it will be introduced on all game worlds.

Quote from: EsquireFlyer on January 02, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
So the request from some players is just to have some kind of easy or automated way to transfer hundreds of planes either from the UM into the LT Storage, or into the chop shop or scrapping, so that it functions "as if" the rule was in place from the beginning of the world, and no players are punished.

Quote from: EsquireFlyer on January 02, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
I think the problem is that it was mid-game, as described. Because if the "long term storage" feature existed at the beginning of the gameworld, more people would have used it, and we wouldn't have this UM mess that we have now. But because there was no LT storage option at the start of the world, the only way for players to simulate parking AC in the desert (which real airlines do all the time) was to dump them on the UM, even if it's not an "appropriate" use of the UM, since there was no "real" storage option.

(And, in turn, the urge for players to buy massive numbers of planes they don't need is because of the way the tax system works in this game, based on cash accounting, another game design decision which dramatically affects player behavior, for which the players are now being punished.)

And so now, since the game world has been running for ~30 years, mass-kicking those planes from the UM in the middle creates a huge pain for players with large fleets stored there, which is a problem that wouldn't exist if the both the UM ban and the LT Storage option existed at game start.

So the request from some players is just to have some kind of easy or automated way to transfer hundreds of planes either from the UM into the LT Storage, or into the chop shop or scrapping, so that it functions "as if" the rule was in place from the beginning of the world, and no players are punished.

This rule doesn't affect me personally, since I never had large cash piles (due in part to Algerian rebellion, etc.) with which to buy surplus planes that I didn't need to fly immediately, or income that I needed to invest to avoid taxes. But I can still see why the affected players feel unfairly punished by this rule change and why they request a remedy.

Quote from: dmoose42 on January 10, 2014, 12:30:15 PM
note that this means that acquiring slots is no longer a tax deductible expense and that you will have to pay taxes on this income, even though you used the cash to buy slots. 

Quote from: LemonButt on January 10, 2014, 01:37:19 PM
That means a $700k set of slots in Dubai cost $700k for the Dubai airline and $1 million for other airlines.

Quote from: sami on January 10, 2014, 02:15:33 PM
The slot is an asset, so it will not count towards your taxable income/expense in any country, until you stop using the asset(slot) and remove it from the company books.

Quote from: Minto Typhoon on January 11, 2014, 02:00:24 AM
The slots are a zero value asset. 

Once you buy them they have to be depreciated to a zero value as they cannot be sold, or traded for a price.

Quote from: schro on January 11, 2014, 03:53:18 PM
In my opinion, each of the 3 options above has a number of flaws with it that doesn't jive with "the real world", but we're also trying to compare the AWS world that has some game mechanics that are not in sync with the real world either.

Quote from: swiftus27 on January 16, 2014, 07:02:39 PM
This game isn't GAAP compliant

Quote from: ArcherII on January 16, 2014, 02:48:06 PM
In the airline information page, shouldn't the Company Value meter be labelled as Shareholders' equity?

Quote from: swiftus27 on January 16, 2014, 07:02:39 PM
Owners equity and company value are basically one and the same.   This game isn't GAAP compliant

Quote from: swiftus27 on January 16, 2014, 07:02:39 PM
This game isn't GAAP compliant

Quote from: swiftus27 on January 16, 2014, 07:02:39 PM
Owners equity and company value are basically one and the same.   This game isn't GAAP compliant

Quote from: rubiohiguey on January 22, 2014, 01:25:08 PM
I had over 24.5 million prepaid taxes last year. My end of year resulted in tax loss. So I should have a lot of prepaid taxes (paid during the good months) returned this January Game year.

BUT

On tax calculation: taxes returned: 0

How come?

Quote from: BD on January 22, 2014, 03:15:40 PM
I had same question about the message...in the transition to the new accounting system it does not show this info, even though the line items above the tax rebate line show that a refund is due.

Check your Cash Flow and Income Statements for January...you would see a refund was actually given if you were due one prior to the new accounting kicking in (e.g. you made a large aircraft purchase).

Quote from: sami on March 02, 2014, 04:49:18 AM
But the CI will climb quickly anyway..

Quote from: dmoose42 on March 02, 2014, 05:19:16 AM
Agree with schro on this one.  firing teammates is rarely the way to go.  the CI penalty far exceeds the benefit in sacking your least favorite pilots.  better to grow into the excess...

Quote from: CUR$E on March 02, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
If an airline fires people in real life nobody cares

Quote from: jneil121 on March 02, 2014, 02:14:51 PM
Tell that to the 5000 Qantas staff that just got the axe and the communities in which they were based, have now lost their airservices and livelihoods.

Quote from: BD on March 02, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
Would have liked a one time reprieve on this with an ongoing game, but since we all are hit with it, it doesn't seem unfair or overly burdensome in general, though I could imagine there might be a few individual cases where this would be a problem.

Quote from: LemonButt on March 03, 2014, 12:43:40 PM
You guys are looking at this the wrong way.  Staff requirements were X and now they are <X.  You aren't losing anything by keeping staff levels at X.  The fact required staff levels are <X is a gift.  Just let the excess staff sit there until you grow into it and then you will realize the savings.

Quote from: Sami
Starting capital for new airlines is now more dynamic.

It already previously has been tied to the inflation and also to the game progress. Meaning that the starting capital has increased over time and the later you join, the more money you get proportionally.

This calculation has been now changed further to support new players. The effect of game's progress vs. start money is higher than before, and it takes also now into account the size of airport you choose as your HQ airport.

Practical example: in 1952 in Game World #4 the start up money was $1 200 000. In 1972 the player joining would have $1 970 000 due inflation and game progress (old calculation). With this change however the player will get this money if he joins at the smallest possible airport (size class 1). If he picks a larger airport the sum is higher, in this case in class 5 airport it would be $5 000 000. Or if he joins in year 2000 (= 50 years into the game) and picks a class 5 airport the starting money is $31 000 000 (without this change it would have been about $11mil).

Quote from: Sami - 2009 post
Conditions are: negative financial result for last 30 days, more than -5mil cash OR airline value less than -5 mil..

Quote from: Luperco on March 04, 2014, 09:34:40 AM
Not so simple when you have to fight every week to have a positive income. Resetting the employment level to the requirement, for example, make my finances from loosing (few) money every week to learn (still few) something. I know that there are other areas to change to learn more money but when you are small an from a small airport/city, every bit is important.

Quote from: sami on March 04, 2014, 03:50:10 PM
All costs and sums follow always inflation

Quote from: LemonButt on March 04, 2014, 03:55:04 PM
Yes, I know.  I am the 7xCRJ airline sami mentioned.  The cost of cutting the staff far outweighs the cost of paying them each week IMO.  The next few aircraft will be "free" for office staff.  I am currently paying $50k/week more for the extra staff, which is 2.5% of my weekly revenue.  If I cut the staff, my CI will take a hit and morale will drop costing me much more than $50k/week.  

Quote from: CUR$E on March 02, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
I still don't know why there is this CI drop thing anyways and why it can be so hard to go down more than 100 CI points. If an airline fires people in real life nobody cares and if somebody cares, that stops usually outside of the family members or at least at the borders of the country. Honestly I would not even know where to inform myself if an airline in Argentina or a US regional airline dropped staff.
What I care about is if an airline has new aircraft - but that's a thing PAX in AirwaySim don't care much about. They seem to care more about the people that were laid off to save the company but be fine flying in a 20+ year old Soviet prop with 50% condition.

Quote from: Mr.HP on March 12, 2014, 02:53:35 PM
In the new forum, we have karma, [applaud] and [smite]. Do they serve important roles? And what are the roles?

Thanks

Quote from: LemonButt on March 12, 2014, 03:23:29 PM
It's just a reputation system.  If someone is helpful, you give them a +applaud and if they are trolls you give them a +smite.

Quote from: CUR$E on April 01, 2014, 02:51:51 PM
caon like the Yellowstone one would break out the whole US would be shut down for much longer. Not just because there is ashes everywhere but also because the air space is needed for emergency flights and many civilians in pilot positions etc. would be called to National Guard or Reservists or whatever.

Quote
And even if some thing might look a bit unrealistic at first, it's intended to add immersion to the game! You want realism? Stop playing your CRJ airlines because in real world they don't work, they BK and put many hard working people in unemployment. However, AWS is about fun and an experience, so your CRJ airlines work as well as some events that maybe need a bit of imagination.

QuoteHowever, don't be so negative. The huge negative events won't fire week for week, I guess sami has implemented them in a style where they may trigger 1-3 times in a _long time gameworld_ and of course less in the shorter ones.

Quote from: LemonButt on April 01, 2014, 03:14:32 PM
I'm not in Euroworld and can't see the results and the announcement made it sounds as if every event was negative (which we now know they are not).  My comments were that 5 days is unrealistic for shutting down an entire continent, at least for continents that aren't Europe.

You have inside knowledge as to what exactly the events are since it sounds like most came from your input.  The rest of us are flying blind right now.

Mt Saint Helens erupted in 1980 in the US in Washington State and was the largest eruption in 100 years.  It only covered 11 states in the US, had a negligible effect on Canada, and didn't even touch the rest of the North American countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens#Aftermath  I'm not pulling these facts out of my butt--shutting down all of North America for even a single day would require way more than a volcano eruption.

Yes, we want realism but shutting down North America or Asia for 5 days is not realism.  I think you're taking my comment to the extreme as I have no problem with random events that are negative, but shutting down a continent for 5 days, to my knowledge, has never happened in the history of air travel with the one isolated case of Europe and the Iceland volcano, but even then it only shut down parts of Europe and not the entire continent.

P.S. CRJ airlines are realistic--that's why they exist IRL.  And this is only the second time ever I've ever tried to run a CRJ airline so I'm not a habitual CRJ airline builder.

As I stated, we're all flying blind here except for you because the details are sparse right now.  This is a simulation--not an arcade game, so sorry if I have negative feelings towards a completely unrealistic event with seemingly too extreme consequences at first blush.  If an entire continent can be shutdown for 5 days, I'm assuming there are other events that can shut it down for 1 to 4 days.

Quote from: [SC] - King Kong on April 01, 2014, 04:23:15 PM
You have absolutely no clue why CRJ airlines exist in real life, they don't work. Not from an airline management perspective. Yes, they fly but do you really think your cheap Y fare pays off the costs for those? nah

Quote from: tvdan1043 on May 12, 2014, 06:12:35 PM
I see in the attachment in Sami's latest post in the other thread that the "event demand" is higher. Does this mean it's possible for events to not shut down everything but to create a temporary spike in demand (i.e. Olympics)?

QuoteGame status bar has now a balloon for count of unread messages in the alliance forum. The Dashboard alliance forum view will be removed (to save space and due some formatting issues).  [pictured below]

Quote* Route planning page has the option to show only your flights, vs. all flights on this route pair.

Quote from: schro on May 13, 2014, 08:12:41 PM
:-(

This bugs me nearly enough to open a bug report for stating it is about to happen. If the feature request forum wasn't locked, I would wager money that multiple requests for its return will be clamored for (as that happened last time it was marginalized).

Quote from: tvdan1043 on June 03, 2014, 02:20:22 AM
Problem with the revamped Manage Routes page:  The "select all" box is gone.  :'(

Quote from: CUR$E on June 19, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
Conclusion: The system must be changed to be longer lasting accurate and actually predicting if the fuel price will increase or decrease the next 24 month. I'm ok with very very few failures in this (wrong predictions), however, those must be then visible for all airlines so nobody knows the truth.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 20, 2014, 11:58:44 PM
Posting here if since we don't have the Feature Request forum open:

Along the lines with the projections, it would be nice to have a CI projection.  Based on the level of spending, where the CI will likely end up (I guess taking average delays into considerations, number of airports).

Also, it would be nice to have the amount needed to be spent on marketing to achieve certain level of desired CI.

Quote from: LemonButt on June 24, 2014, 04:03:16 PM"Strategic Plan" page where, as the CEO, you can set your plan for CI targets, LF targets, fleet planning, profitability, etc. and then you can compare where you're at to where you want to be.

Quote from: sami on June 24, 2014, 07:45:01 PM
I do have plans for the new bases in other games too but it requires some test runs to make sure the existing airlines do not suffer from that, (have been hugely busy lately)...

Quote from: Monica on September 11, 2014, 12:33:49 AM
Earlier today I paid 60 million for A320-200 in GW#4, now I'm paying 52 million. Does it really change that fast?

Quote from: dmoose42 on September 11, 2014, 01:29:14 AM
The alignment between new and used needs to be fixed as the acceptable used range is based on the old valuations and the new plane prices are based on the wacky new Sami-heuristic

Quote from: Andre on September 11, 2014, 01:35:04 PM
The slots at KLGA cannot be acquired since you have exceeded the temporary slot acquisition quota for this airport.

Quote
will new aircraft models that aren't popular be lowered in price if they don't pick up customers?

It could be useful for example having something like this in the news feed to generate sales:

Quote* MD-90 and B717 fleet groups have been combined (since B717 was basically MD-95). (Pros: Fleet commonality etc. Cons: B717 turnaround is now 40 mins (fleet group wide setting).)

* Data for these models is also checked, changes in rwy requirements.

* Added McDonnell Douglas MD-90-50 (even longer range variant from the -90-30ER) and MD-90-55 (-50 with extra exits for more capacity), these are both prototype models. (note: MD-95 prototype variants to be added later, as well as more DC-9 range options)

* Changes are effective in any new games, and implemented also to current GW2.

Quote from: sami on September 12, 2014, 03:49:34 PM
GW4 ok

Quote from: [ATA] xyeahtony on September 13, 2014, 11:09:33 PM
Although the 717 was based of the MD-90 family, they have no commonality in real life.

Quote from: ekaneti on October 04, 2014, 05:09:36 PM
Allowing players to open more than 4 hubs has ruined the game. Id prefer going back to A-B-C scheduling with 2 hubs allowed

Quote from: ekaneti on October 04, 2014, 05:09:36 PM
Allowing players to open more than 4 hubs has ruined the game. Id prefer going back to A-B-C scheduling with 2 hubs allowed

Quote from: schro on October 08, 2014, 01:15:52 PM
I'm sitting here with my head tilted

Quote from: Yarnam on October 10, 2014, 11:42:20 AM
Is the new Airline Score graphed anywhere so we can see how we are doing (up/down/holding)?

Quote from: spiff23 on October 07, 2014, 01:49:05 AM
Overall I like the new improvements.  for alliance scoring the only issue is ties and especially the CI category.  I always assumed the number shown was rounding and the game engine ranked us to some decimal place...I.e., #1 position was 99.896, #2 was 99.892,

Quote from: sami on October 10, 2014, 11:02:57 PM
No, it's a basic value stored only once. But it's technically easy to add the history data for that (since many other values, like company image, are stored on weekly basis too).. though wouldn't see that as very useful feature really. Perhaps adding the score into the stats (as a new stats item) could work and you can see the trend compared to others then.

Quote from: alexgv1 on October 13, 2014, 02:26:35 PM
I really like that idea LA...

May be cosmetic for now but could become useful later on as well if stocks/shares or something are introduced.

Quote from: LotusAirways on October 12, 2014, 09:56:49 PM
The new scoring system is a great improvement. Congrats! But can we take it a step further? At present the score reflects the views of both Shareholders and Passengers using 18 variables. Perhaps we should have 2 scores:

Shareholders, 9 variables: Pre-tax profit, Operating revenue, Profit margin, Fuel burn per passenger, Route ASK, Route RPK, Route LF, Fleet utilization, and Credit rating.   

Passengers, 9 variables: Airline image, Transported pax (since start), Airline age, Fleet size, Fleet age, Fleet condition, Punctuality, Number of weekly flights, and Number of airports served.

And both scores the top 3 airlines can be on players' achievements.
LA

Quote from: LotusAirways on October 12, 2014, 09:56:49 PM
The new scoring system is a great improvement. Congrats! But can we take it a step further? At present the score reflects the views of both Shareholders and Passengers using 18 variables. Perhaps we should have 2 scores:

Shareholders, 9 variables: Pre-tax profit, Operating revenue, Profit margin, Fuel burn per passenger, Route ASK, Route RPK, Route LF, Fleet utilization, and Credit rating.   

Passengers, 9 variables: Airline image, Transported pax (since start), Airline age, Fleet size, Fleet age, Fleet condition, Punctuality, Number of weekly flights, and Number of airports served.

And both scores the top 3 airlines can be on players' achievements.
LA

Quote from: ellandrd on October 13, 2014, 05:22:08 PM
(Virgin has never suffered issues as a result of it being younger than BA). (I'm old enough to remember when Virgin were the new kid on the block ::)).

Quote from: ekaneti on November 14, 2014, 08:15:47 PM
What Id like to see is a limit to two hubs but with the ability to do A-B-C-B scheduling.

Quote from: Infinity on November 14, 2014, 10:02:12 PM
And how exactly would that help in containing large airlines? We've had that discussion when the new basing rules were discussed. Any further complaining is unnecessary.

Quote from: sami on February 15, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Just randomly picked some airline with many bases... (usually testing things with actual airlines with a copy of the actual database at the test server)

..but now you'd see how it looks like then. ;D

Quote from: tvdan1043 on February 27, 2015, 06:58:56 AM
RE: the new Aircraft Information page...

Listing every frame ever built has the potential to get very unwieldy, especially for the most popular aircraft in the game (A320, 737NG, MD80 etc) that build thousands and thousands of some models. That's a lot of information to dump on one page, and there's low value to it relative to the bandwidth and browser memory it'll eat (especially on a phone). Could it possibly be on a separate page with a link on the Aircraft Info page to stay consistent with the Negotiate buy/lease and Production slots links?

Quote from: meiru on February 27, 2015, 01:39:12 PM
... was this done because of my feature request? 

Quote from: sami on February 27, 2015, 02:45:02 PM
No, but if you have one, then pls point me to it so I can mark it as "done" and close it. ;D
edit: found it actually already..

Quote from: [ATA] frimp on April 04, 2015, 07:26:01 PM
is it just me or do other people also find the new interface change on the route scheduling page a real pain when scheduling 7-day routes.
The multiple pages is a real real pain and something we could do without..

Quote from: [ATA] frimp on April 04, 2015, 07:26:01 PM
is it just me or do other people also find the new interface change on the route scheduling page a real pain when scheduling 7-day routes.
The multiple pages is a real real pain and something we could do without..